[GodGunsGuts]

Of course, the Evos are still scrambling to find a way to explain God's specially created biological discontinuities in materialistic terms. But the fact that God's creation has forced them to use the same language as the Creationist Model of Origins speaks VOLUMES! See reply #2 for more details.

And speaking of the survival of the fittest...After sustaining repeated broadsides by the HMS Creation, the HMS Beagle is listing badly and is threatening to sink beneath the waves of scientific falsification. The HMS Creation, on the other hand, is standing tall, is battle ready, and will continue to dominate the scientific seas of God's special creation!

[Alter Kaker]

The authors of the paper are not arguing in favor of creationism.

I think you know it too.

The issue is the relative prevalence of horizontal gene transfers within evolution. The authors are arguing for a larger role, whereas tradition Darwinian models assigned a smaller role.

It's remarkable how dishonest so many creationists seem to be. You're at the top of the list -- congenital liar territory.

[GodGunsGuts]

Creationist Classification — An Update
by Wayne Frair, Ph.D.

Note: This article is based on Dr. Frair’s presentation in the education track of the 1998 ICC.

Creationists frequently have been criticized for merely being anti-evolutionary without offering viable alternatives, and frequently this is true. But in the past two decades there has been a genuine movement toward establishment of well-founded creationist models based upon empirical research and inductive science. For example, in 1994 and in 1998 the themes for the Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism has been “Establishing a Creation Model of Origins.”

At the 1990 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism, Walter J. ReMine introduced “Discontinuity Systematics” (5,1), and Kurt P. Wise “Baraminology”(9). Both of these are creationist-sensitive taxonomic methods which can be employed for classifying all forms of life into their natural groups. Most scientists utilize systematic schemes which assume macroevolution or at least are quite consistent with it; so if it is true that the biosphere consists of groups of unrelated plants and animals, these macroevolution-oriented procedures would be immune from detecting this reality. Both discontinuity systematics and baraminology are systems which presume an origins model that could be termed “limited-change,” “abrupt-appearance,” “microevolutionary,” or “polyphyletic.”

Practitioners of these methods have no compulsion to jump natural gaps among living or fossil forms, and the investigators attempt to ascertain patterns of genetic continuity based upon persuasive evidence. The baraminology and discontinuity systematics disciplines may be expressed visually as an orchard or forest of trees (Figure 1) rather than the macroevolutionary single-tree drawing (Figure 2) for depicting how life might have evolved. The difference between baraminology and discontinuity systematics mainly is that the former includes Biblical revelation as one of its criteria for determining natural groupings. In the latter only comparative data from fossil, living and preserved material are employed.

The term baraminology is derived from the Hebrew bara, “create,” and from min, “kind.” In 1941 Dr. Frank L. Marsh introduced the term baramin, and over the decades since that time there have been some efforts aimed at incorporating the concept into empirical studies (see 4,2). But it was not until after 1992 that taxonomic tools began to be used in some depth to characterize the discrete groupings of specific types of organisms (3,6,7,8,10).

Taxonomic specialists in various species should be encouraged to utilize these  "limited-change" approaches. With them a scientist need not feel obligated to jump any gaps unless the evidence is compelling. Even though evolutionary theorizing can be a somewhat enjoyable and challenging “game” that biologists play, the procedures of the “limited change” models emphasize factual data, and when they are compared to macroevolutionary methodology, they appear to be more natural, objective and verifiable.

References

1. Bartz, P.A. 1991. A refinement of biosystematics which reflects baraminic variation. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28(1):18-20.
2. Frair, W.F. 1991. Original kinds and turtle phylogeny. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28(1):21-24.
3. García-Ponzuelo-Ramos, C. 1998. Dental variability in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): implications for the variability of primates. Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(2):66-75.
4. Marsh, F.L. 1969. The form and structure of living things. Creation Research Society Quarterly 6(1):13-25.
5. ReMine, W.J. 1990. Discontinuity systematics: a new methodology of biosystematics relevant to the creation model. in R.E.Walsh, editor. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism. Volume II, Technical Symposium :207-216. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Robinson, D.A. 1997. A mitochondrial DNA analysis of the testudine apobaramin. Creation Research Society Quarterly 33(4):262-272.
7. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. Creation Research Society Quarterly 34(4):196-208.
8. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. Evidence for a holobaraminic origin of the cats. Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(1):2- 14.
9. Wise, K.P. 1990. Baraminology: a young-earth creation biosystematic method. in R.E.Walsh, editor. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism. Volume II, Technical Symposium :345- 360. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
10. Robinson, D.A. 1992. Practical baraminology. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 6(2):122-137.

Dr. Frair (Emeritus Professor of Biology at The King’s College, NY) is a current CRS board member, and was CRS president from 1986-1994.

[GodGunsGuts]

Don’t forget to read the startling Evo admission contained in the OP above!